Suwon District Court 2006Guhap8410 (No. 16, 2008)

Cho High Court Decision 2005Du3924, 2006.30

Whether it is merely a nominal representative director or not.

A representative director who actually exercises his/her authority as a representative director and actually participates in the management shall be deemed a representative subject to disposition by recognizing the representative, and shall not be deemed a nominal representative director solely on the ground that the controlling shareholder exists.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The cost of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 7,597,217,00 for the year 2004 against the Plaintiff on August 3, 2005 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for this Court’s decision are as follows. Thus, this Court’s decision is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 5 The following shall be added to the 6th second:

[The representative director of a corporation outside Korea is actually both A and A. The reasons are as follows.

A representative director who actually exercises his/her authority and actually takes part in management may not be deemed a nominal representative director solely on the ground that he/she constitutes a representative subject to disposition by being recognized as a representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8030, Jan. 18, 2008).

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence of Nos. 39 through 49 (including a natural disaster).

1) 소외 법인 대표이사 양AA은 2003. 9. 장BB이 운영하던 주식회사 XXXX에 입사하면서 장BB을 찰게 되었다. 양AA은 2004. 4. 12. 소외 법인 대표이사 집무실에서 원고, 소외 법인 전 대표이사 송CC, 전 상무이사 박DD, 전 부회장 남EE과 함께 소외 법인 인수 계약서 작성 과정에 참석하였다.

2) Upon receiving a request from the headB on May 28, 2004, both A and B were registered as the representative director of the non-party legal entity. The eF, who served as the executive director in the non-party legal entity, was working in the non-party legal entity upon the request of both A and B. The twoA were present at the office prepared in the non-party legal entity and received the KRW 3.6 million monthly payment.

3) On February 5, 2010, both A and B provided false tax invoices to Non-Party Corporation without providing goods or services in the Seoul Central District Court on February 5, 2010, the judgment became final and conclusive on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gohap507), and around that time, the above judgment became final and conclusive. Although both A and B asserted that they were not involved in the business of Non-Party Corporation as the representative director under the name of Non-Party Corporation at the time, they did not accept the above argument on the ground that the F was instructed to issue the tax invoices equivalent to 7.6 billion won from the headB while the F was instructed to issue the tax invoices, and that the F was instructed to issue it to the working person by ordering him/her to issue the tax invoices.

From the 3th to the 9th day of the 00th day, the following amounts are met:

The defendant asserts that the following reasons are added to the disposition:

It is clear that the KRW 1 billion deposited from the account of the non-party corporation on May 19, 2004 and KRW 800 million deposited on May 21, 2004 are reverted to the plaintiff who is an executive officer or employee of the non-party corporation. It is possible to dispose of income in accordance with Article 106(1)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same).

Article 106(1)1(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has been leaked out of the company, if the person to whom the amount was reverted is an executive officer or employee, it shall be treated as a bonus for the person to whom the amount was reverted. There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff is an executive officer or employee under Article 15 of the Commercial Act. There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff is an executive officer of the non-party corporation or an employee under subparagraph 10-1, 2, 3, 17-1, 2, 28-2, 28-1 through 29-1, 29-1 through 16, and 1, 29-1 through 29, and 1,000 won from the witness JJ of the first instance trial, and 1,000 won from May 19, 2004 and 800,000 won from May 21, 2004.

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.